Some intersting reading in the following article. Just goes to show that an awful lot of clubs would be no more without their sugar daddies. Some of those loss figures in a year are scary.



[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2012/apr/24/bradford-bulls-debts-super-league?CMP=twt_gu[/url

Although the Guardian is not a RL fan and there is a slant to the article, some of the trading figures are indeed scary.

It is difficult to properley interpretate some of the losses (especially as they are already 12 months out of date), but it is clear that some of the clubs are a long way from break even and without their wealthy backers London and Huddersfield could not exist.

It is interesting that expansion is deemed a success because of the Catalan team, yet there is no mention of the failed clubs, such as Paris, Crusaders etc

Many would complain, but with hefty losses being incurred at mot clubs, the salary cap may well need a re-think. However, with 3 year franchises, should clubs really be overspending on player salaries.

In the protected environment that exists, perhaps more realism is in order and clubs should cut their cloth according to their income.

Ironically, before going in to admin, we made the smallest loss of the loss makers.

The 4 profit makers were above us of course but everyone else made a bigger loss than we did.

With Admin wiping debts and Glover buying for £30k and then this year gates up significantly - it looks like we are in a good position compared to most.

Interesting reading, god knows how Leeds have made that much cash, is there any Bradford / Harris debt amongst that? Good effort by Warrington too.



Also, most of the losses are presumably mopped up by the Sugar Daddy’s (How much cash has that guy got at London?) but I wasn’t aware that St’s had a benefactor, so who covers that deficit & why is it so large with the club reaching the G.F?

Bulls just gambled badly. Had huge crowds on the back of Bullmania but blew all the money on pre-match entertainment, kind of devouring itself in the process. Since then, chased the grand final dream but gave away season tickets at stupid prices. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you sell 9,000 season tickets at a third of their "through the gate" price, you are surviving on crowds of 3,000 whilst throwing away the extra money the ones who wouldn't pay full price would bring.



I know Bulls fans go on about the overdraft being pulled, etc, but if you survive on a massive debt, you have to look at why, because it means that at no point are you liquid.



Sugar daddies are distorting the picture slightly, because teams without them have to spend to keep up, and teams who have the income through the gate but without the big investor lose the advantage of all their hard work.

Slugger - isn't this what Wakey have done - allbeit on a smaller scale ?

Last season i paid for 3 season tickets at £175 = £525.



This year i purchased 4 at £100 = £400.



The extra ticket holder bought chips and bottle of cider (not glass) and a correct scorecard on saturday, so in answer to your question you'll have to decide for yourself.



If this is widespread and fans are parting with money at games then i think the ST discount is working but only the club will now that for sure.

Although our plan was similar it has other benefits for us.



By getting interest because of the price, and further interest because the crowds are big and the atmosphere better. Bradford dont need those things.

Also we have invested in more outlets to sell to people so that will be good for us.



On top of that the crowd numbers being up is good for franchise.

I would agree if Glover had thrown the full salary cap into the team and put a winning side on the park. And I did say "distorted". With average crowds of over 8,000, we are probably spending a sustainable amount, and are probably making more per week than we were a couple of years ago.



As far as I know, Glover's investment has been about stabilising, ground improvements, and slowly building the club into a self-sustaining model. Teams like Broncos are propped up by sugar daddies, as are Huddersfield (they could not assemble their team on their crowds - I bet we could assemble ours on our crowds). Teams like Bulls spend like they've got sugar daddies. Teams like yours are the victims, as you live within your means and so struggle to keep up. Us to an extent, because I don't think Glover is throwing money around. He's investing root and branch rather than just blowing it on player salaries, presumably waiting to build good support in the build up to Newmarket.

That's exactly how it should be done. I have not an ounce of sympathy with clubs who spend over their income (and that includes how we used to be!) Most sensible people don't run their household budget in that way so why should they do that with their club?

I know it's a completely different ball game nowadays but many years ago, when most clubs were 'member clubs' I went to a members AGM and heard former Chairman, old Les Pounder, explaining why the club were not signing 'big stars'. He basically gave a piece of Mr Micawbers logic on income and expenditure. In a nutshell don't spend more than you are generating. Old fashioned views if you like BUT the same principals apply now as then.

Let's hope our new owner sticks to this. Loan after loan and robbing Peter to pay Paul have no place in the modern business of Rugby League. Nor does ignoring the taxman have any place in the running of a club. He is one creditor who must be paid! - as we know to our peril!

Anyway here's hoping we have turned the corner!

The only problem with generic growth is that you are "in real terms" getting further behind the leading pack, who not only are either being given or are earning more money.

Clubs like ours are plundered by these bigger teams for our finest players which in turns continues the weakening and strengthening cycles and maintains the status quo.

Thats why the gamble is so appealing and clubs live beyond their dreams.

If any of us want to see "successful" rugby played in this district, i'm afraid there is only one real solution IMO, and it begins with M.

Money ????????